Young v. Kimball
| Decision Date | 01 May 1854 |
| Citation | 23 Pa. 193 |
| Parties | Young versus Kimball. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Cone and Johnson, for plaintiff in error.—The horses were not, in the language of the common law, "committed to an innkeeper;" nor in the language of the Act of Assembly, "delivered to him to be kept in his stables." The horse may be detained by an innkeeper for feed, but not for the feed of the driver: Bacon's Ab. "Inns," &c. If a horse be once parted with, the innkeeper cannot, on his coming in again, detain him for what was due before 1 Strange 557, Jones v. Pearle; 2 Esp. N. P. 195; 8 Mod. 172; 3 Hill 488-492; 10 Petersdorf 430-1.
Williston, for defendant in error.—Culp was not a tenant of the stable. It was contended that the lien of an innkeeper existed as well for the boarding and lodging of the traveller as for the feed of his horse.
It is not disputed that there was money due to Kimball, the plaintiff below, for the keeping of these horses; and if that fact gave him a lien upon them, it is immaterial what the Court said about the board of the driver, for any amount of lien would justify their detention.
His right to reclaim them, when forcibly or clandestinely taken from his custody, depended upon his right to detain them as against the taker, and replevin is a proper remedy in such a case.
The right of lien for the keeping of several horses of the same person at the same time is a charge; not against the horses, and therefore several and divided; but against the owner, secured by a lien upon all the horses, and therefore joint and several, and one horse may be detained for the keeping of all.
These principles dispose of all the points raised in the trial except one — Was there a right of lien?
The defendant was a mail carrier, and the plaintiff's inn was the place where he changed horses; so that the bill included charges for stable-room and supplies for two teams, and each of them was away from the plaintiff's stable twice a week. It is supposed that the plaintiff lost all his right to lien for previous charges every time that he allowed the horses to be taken away from his stable. Is it so?
Our Act of Assembly gives a lien to both innkeepers and livery-stable keepers for the expense of keeping horses: and it may be possible that this was not intended to change the common law right of innkeepers as such, and that, at common law, a lien would not, under these...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parks v. " MR. FORD"
...Bernstein v. Hineman, supra, 86 Pa. Super. at 201. Nonconsensual loss of possession, however, does not destroy the lien, Young v. Kimball, 23 Pa. 193 (1854), since such involuntary surrender of possession cannot properly be construed as a waiver of rights by the lienor. See Brown, supra, at......
-
Turner v. Horton
... ... 1008; Babca v. Eldrid, 47 Wis ... 189. Custody not being essential to the preservation of a ... lien it is not dissolved by a sale. ( Young v ... Kimball, 23 Pa. 193; Husbands v. Jones, 72 Ky ... 218; Rankin v. Scott, 12 Wheat. 177; 25 Cyc. 676; ... Coggshall v. Bank, 57 N.E ... ...
-
Ferguson v. Rafferty
...2 Mass. 511; Lester v. McDowell, 18 Pa. 91; Miller v. Warden, 111 Pa. 300; Harlan v. Harlan, 15 Pa. 507; Mead v. Kilday, 2 W. 110; Young v. Kimball, 23 Pa. 195; Snyder Vaux, 2 R. 425; Mather v. Trinity Church, 3 S. & R. 509; Brown v. Caldwell, 10 S. & R. 114; Baker v. Howell, 6 S. & R. 476;......
-
Fitzgerald v. Elliott
... ... or interfering with such possession, and this seizure and ... levy upon said logs was a trespass: Young v ... Kimball, 23 Pa. 193; Hartman v. Keown, 101 Pa ... 338; Swift v. Morrison, 2 W.N. 699; Brown v ... Dempsey, 95 Pa. 243; Mathias v ... ...